[Hoot Gibson]

I knew what you meant, i just didnt want to point out a mistake like u would have for anyone else on here. BP holds the blame. Its their Spill.

I agree BP deserves the blame for the spill but BP also has the responsibility to compensate the victims. Turning control of $20 billion to Obama to dispense is no way to meet that responsibility. The shareholders and the victims of the spill should be outraged.

[TheRealVille]

I agree BP deserves the blame for the spill but BP also has the responsibility to compensate the victims. Turning control of $20 billion to Obama to dispense is no way to meet that responsibility. The shareholders and the victims of the spill should be outraged.

Where does it say that Obama is going to dole it out. The latest that I had heard on the 20B, was only that Obama was making them put it aside for claims, not that the government would decide who to give it to.

[Old School]

From the article below.
Kenneth R. Feinberg was named by President Obama in June 2010 as the independent administrator of a $20 billion fund set up by BP to compensate victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Feinberg will not only decide who is paid for losses from the gulf oil spill, and how much, he also gets to pick the three judges to handle appeals of his decisions.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/referen...ne=nyt-per

[Hoot Gibson]

Where does it say that Obama is going to dole it out. The latest that I had heard on the 20B, was only that Obama was making them put it aside for claims, not that the government would decide who to give it to.

An "independent third party" headed by Kenneth Feinberg, former Obam pay czar, will be doling out the money. Obama is proving to be an ineffective president but as a shakedown artist, he has eclipsed the Rev. Jesse Jackson - doing things the Chicago way on steroids.

[Old School]

Obama appointed Feinberg to this position, I would think that if Feinberg did not comply with his wishes then he would be remove and replaced with someone who would. After all that's the Chicago way.

[Wildcatk23]

http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Kenneth_R._Feinberg

Prior to his appointment, Feinberg was best known for heading the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. He tackled the thorny role pro-bono, deciding how much victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would receive from the federal government. He worked for free as special pay master.(2)

The bush Admin Also Used Him.

[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Kenneth_R._Feinberg

Prior to his appointment, Feinberg was best known for heading the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. He tackled the thorny role pro-bono, deciding how much victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would receive from the federal government. He worked for free as special pay master.(2)

The bush Admin Also Used Him.

Feinberg did not slash the salaries of executives working for private companies or take money from private companies and redistribute it under Bush's watch. Obama's actions are unprecedented.

[Wildcatk23]

Feinberg did not slash the salaries of executives working for private companies or take money from private companies and redistribute it under Bush's watch. Obama's actions are unprecedented.

You Mean Slash The Executives rescued by the federal government in the 2008-2009 recession?

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

You Mean Slash The Executives rescued by the federal government in the 2008-2009 recession?

Ouch I think he got you there Hoot

[Hoot Gibson]

Ouch I think he got you there Hoot

Not at all. I was against the bailouts but no law or agreement with the companies allowed Obama to fire anybody (as he did with GM's CEO) or reduce any executive salaries. To my knowledge, the changes in executive pay were "voluntary." Do you think that anybody volunteered to take pay cuts without any pressure from our Shakedown Artist in Chief? Those executives had contracts with their respective companies that should have been honored. Any salary reductions with the executives should have been negotiated by the companies as a pre-condition to receiving federal funding - not as an afterthought when the large bonuses embarrassed Obama politically.

[Wildcatk23]

Not at all. I was against the bailouts but no law or agreement with the companies allowed Obama to fire anybody (as he did with GM's CEO) or reduce any executive salaries. To my knowledge, the changes in executive pay were "voluntary." Do you think that anybody volunteered to take pay cuts without any pressure from our Shakedown Artist in Chief? Those executives had contracts with their respective companies that should have been honored. Any salary reductions with the executives should have been negotiated by the companies as a pre-condition to receiving federal funding - not as an afterthought when the large bonuses embarrassed Obama politically.

The Government gave these Companies the money to stay in business. Well "We Did" but as i was saying, why shouldnt they have any say in what the CEO's make? Cut his pay a bit and save some of the little men.

[Hoot Gibson]

The Government gave these Companies the money to stay in business. Well "We Did" but as i was saying, why shouldnt they have any say in what the CEO's make? Cut his pay a bit and save some of the little men.

The federal government has no constitutional right to interfere with a legal contract between two parties. A bankruptcy court has the right to terminate contracts when one side cannot meet its contractual obligations - but this was not a case of bankruptcy. The federal government rushed cash to large companies who happened to be huge political donors without taking time to consider the unintended consequences of its actions.

When media accounts emerged disclosing the fact that large bonus payments were being made to managers of companies that had been bailed out, politicians like Obama were understandably embarrassed, but they had no legal right to unilaterally reduce or eliminate those payments that the companies had already committed to make under preexisting contracts.

Do you believe that a president should have the power to arbitrarily cut salaries of the employees of any company that receives federal funding or do you agree that we should have a government of laws and not of men?

[Wildcatk23]

The federal government has no constitutional right to interfere with a legal contract between two parties. A bankruptcy court has the right to terminate contracts when one side cannot meet its contractual obligations - but this was not a case of bankruptcy. The federal government rushed cash to large companies who happened to be huge political donors without taking time to consider the unintended consequences of its actions.

When media accounts emerged disclosing the fact that large bonus payments were being made to managers of companies that had been bailed out, politicians like Obama were understandably embarrassed, but they had no legal right to unilaterally reduce or eliminate those payments that the companies had already committed to make under preexisting contracts.

Do you believe that a president should have the power to arbitrarily cut salaries of the employees of any company that receives federal funding or do you agree that we should have a government of laws and not of men?

If i am not mistaken, The Bush Admin gave the bailout packages? Correct?

The Government bailed out these companies, To save Jobs? For Personal Interest? Idk, Your Administration did it. Either Way these CEO's, and Managers were making to much money, Leaving the little man to fend for Himself. So Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.

[Hoot Gibson]

If i am not mistaken, The Bush Admin gave the bailout packages? Correct?

The Government bailed out these companies, To save Jobs? For Personal Interest? Idk, Your Administration did it. Either Way these CEO's, and Managers were making to much money, Leaving the little man to fend for Himself. So Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.

That is a scary answer and one that our forefathers feared. That is why it would be unconstitutional for the Pay Czar to change the terms of contracts between companies and their employees, regardless of whether the federal government decides to pump money into a company.

FYI, Feinberg's position is the same as mine on this issue. You apparently share the same position as Hugo Chavez. Feinberg gave employees the option of taking "voluntary" pay cuts or having their future income slashed, income which would not be subject to legal contracts. Feinberg acknowledged that the Obama regime had no constitutional right to interfere with existing compensation contracts.

The rule of law is what separates this country from banana republics like Venezuela and Nicaragua. You are entitled to your opinion but you are advocating an extremely dangerous precedent. No president should have the power to unilaterally set aside contracts.

[Old School]

If i am not mistaken, The Bush Admin gave the bailout packages? Correct?

The Government bailed out these companies, To save Jobs? For Personal Interest? Idk, Your Administration did it. Either Way these CEO's, and Managers were making to much money, Leaving the little man to fend for Himself. So Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.

Bush signed a $700 Billion bailout of the banks in Oct. 2008, with the support of both Obama and McCain. After Obama took office in Jan. 09 he signed into law an $872 Billion bailout. With $350 Billion left over from the Bush bailout, Obama had over 1.1 trillion dollars to spend.

[Wildcatk23]

Bush signed a $700 Billion bailout of the banks in Oct. 2008, with the support of both Obama and McCain. After Obama took office in Jan. 09 he signed into law an $872 Billion bailout. With $350 Billion left over from the Bush bailout, Obama had over 1.1 trillion dollars to spend.

So Its ok that bush did it but not obama? You guys are ridiculous you know that?

[Hoot Gibson]

So Its ok that bush did it but not obama? You guys are ridiculous you know that?

I can only speak for myself but I have never agreed with the Bush bailout. Bush wasted a lot of my tax dollars and I criticized him for it often, but Obama has taken government spending to a whole new level. Bush was wrong. Obama has been even more wrong. As for being ridiculous, it is ridiculous for any American to believe that a president should be able to set pay levels for private employees in direct contradiction of the US Constitution.

[Wildcatk23]

I can only speak for myself but I have never agreed with the Bush bailout. Bush wasted a lot of my tax dollars and I criticized him for it often, but Obama has taken government spending to a whole new level. Bush was wrong. Obama has been even more wrong. As for being ridiculous, it is ridiculous for any American to believe that a president should be able to set pay levels for private employees in direct contradiction of the US Constitution.

Private Employee that was bailed out by the Us Government.

[Hoot Gibson]

Private Employee that was bailed out by the Us Government.

You still don't get it, do you? Even the Obama regime recognized that it would be unconstitutional to try to change the terms of existing contracts, so they did not do it. That is why so many executives did receive large bonuses even after the bailouts. You, on the other hand, said you believe that the president should, like some banana republic dictator, be able to arbitrarily reduce the salary of private employees.

Our president is not a dictator and Congress does not have the power to pass legislation that would allow Obama to interfere with existing contracts. That would require a constitutional amendment.

The bailout funds have been used as leverage to negotiate voluntary reductions in bonuses to avoid violating the Constitution as you would have Obama do. If the recipients of those bonuses decide to refuse the cuts and then switch jobs after collecting them, then there is nothing that the feds can do legally to stop them.

As I said, the kind of power that you seem willing to give a US president is scary. Fortunately, we have a written Constitution and a majority of Supreme Court justices who still understand its importance.

[Wildcatk23]

You still don't get it, do you? Even the Obama regime recognized that it would be unconstitutional to try to change the terms of existing contracts, so they did not do it. That is why so many executives did receive large bonuses even after the bailouts. You, on the other hand, said you believe that the president should, like some banana republic dictator, be able to arbitrarily reduce the salary of private employees.

Our president is not a dictator and Congress does not have the power to pass legislation that would allow Obama to interfere with existing contracts. That would require a constitutional amendment.

The bailout funds have been used as leverage to negotiate voluntary reductions in bonuses to avoid violating the Constitution as you would have Obama do. If the recipients of those bonuses decide to refuse the cuts and then switch jobs after collecting them, then there is nothing that the feds can do legally to stop them.

As I said, the kind of power that you seem willing to give a US president is scary. Fortunately, we have a written Constitution and a majority of Supreme Court justices who still understand its importance.

I'm not saying that Obama himself should be able to dictate their income himself. Your opinion of obama makes u argue every point about the man. The way you talk about him is pathetic. Your Bush admin left the country in a outright mess. He and his admin are trying to fix there ****ups.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm not saying that Obama himself should be able to dictate their income himself. Your opinion of obama makes u argue every point about the man. The way you talk about him is pathetic. Your Bush admin left the country in a outright mess. He and his admin are trying to fix there ****ups.

What is pathetic is the way that our education system is failing to teach young people the fundamental way that our government works. People like you are apparently being misled into believing that unlimited presidential power is okay but only when a left wing kook like Obama is in the White House. And yes, you did say that the Pay Czar, who was appointed by Obama and did not require confirmation by the US Senate should be allowed to change the terms of preexisting contracts of executives working private companies whenever those companies receive funding from the federal government. There is no difference in saying that the Pay Czar should have this power and saying that his boss should have the power.

The difference between most conservatives and most liberals is that the power that conservatives believe a president should have do not depend on the political philosophy of the person occupying the White House. I never want to see a US president with the power to fire a private CEO or slash the pay of employees in the private sector.

I admit that I oppose nearly every action that Obama has taken because I believe in our system of government. However, I supported Obama when he fired Gen. McChrystal because one of the most important principles of our government is civilian control of the military. I have also supported Obama's prosecution of the war in Afghanistan because it is the right thing to do.

Where are the liberals who harassed Bush over the Guantonimo Bay detainees, Iraq, and Afghanistan? They have grown almost silent because their man is in the White House now, even though he has basically decided to follow Bush's policies on all of these issues.

People like you are just interchangeable tools of the left wing Democrats. They say jump and you say, "How high?" You are being manipulated and lied to everyday and you do not even realize it. Now that is pathetic.

[Wildcatk23]

Could u show me where i said he should be able to?

[Hoot Gibson]

Could u show me where i said he should be able to?

Sure thing.

In response the following question:

Do you believe that a president should have the power to arbitrarily cut salaries of the employees of any company that receives federal funding or do you agree that we should have a government of laws and not of men?

You responded as follows:

[INDENT]

If i am not mistaken, The Bush Admin gave the bailout packages? Correct?

The Government bailed out these companies, To save Jobs? For Personal Interest? Idk, Your Administration did it. Either Way these CEO's, and Managers were making to much money, Leaving the little man to fend for Himself. So Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.

[/INDENT]

Later, in response to the following comment:

As for being ridiculous, it is ridiculous for any American to believe that a president should be able to set pay levels for private employees in direct contradiction of the US Constitution.

You responded thusly:

[INDENT]

Private Employee that was bailed out by the Us Government.

[/INDENT]

I thought you were very clear on this subject. Are you having second thoughts about your position?

[Old School]

So Its ok that bush did it but not obama? You guys are ridiculous you know that?

You know who is ridiculous?......YOU......once again you let that liberal mindset of yours jump to conclusions. FYI, I have never been favor of any Government bailout. How did you ever come to the conclusion that I favored the Bush bailout or any other Government bailout in the first place? I have nearly 3K post on this site and I challenge you find one just one post where I said, I favored any bailout plan.

It appears from reading many of you comments, that you should check you facts before you embarrass yourself any more.

[Wildcatk23]

Sure thing.

In response the following question:


You responded as follows:

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Later, in response to the following comment:



You responded thusly:

[INDENT][/INDENT]

I thought you were very clear on this subject. Are you having second thoughts about your position?

THE GOVERNMENT Did i say obama? Did i say the pay "Czar". No i said the government. Didnt say that congress should have no say which u said i did.

[Wildcatk23]

You know who is ridiculous?......YOU......once again you let that liberal mindset of yours jump to conclusions. FYI, I have never been favor of any Government bailout. How did you ever come to the conclusion that I favored the Bush bailout or any other Government bailout in the first place? I have nearly 3K post on this site and I challenge you find one just one post where I said, I favored any bailout plan.

It appears from reading many of you comments, that you should check you facts before you embarrass yourself any more.

Why would i go looking for a post you posted? Even if you did post it people mind set changes.

[Hoot Gibson]

THE GOVERNMENT Did i say obama? Did i say the pay "Czar". No i said the government. Didnt say that congress should have no say which u said i did.

You answered "Yes" in a direct response to my question about Obama. I posted our exchange and anybody who wants to reread the entire thread for themselves can do so. You are back peddling. This entire discussion has involved the executive branch because that is where Feinberg, 0bama's Pay Czar, works.

Besides, Congress has no authority to set aside or modify lawful contracts. To do so would require a constitutional amendment, a fact that I have already explained to you.

You lost a debate and are now attempting to disown your own written words. Your were too eager to support what you believed were the Obama regime's actions. In short, you walked into a trap and got yourself snared. There is no need to gnaw your foot off to escape the trap. Just call it a day and limp on home. :biggrin:

[Wildcatk23]

You answered "Yes" in a direct response to my question about Obama. I posted our exchange and anybody who wants to reread the entire thread for themselves can do so. You are back peddling. This entire discussion has involved the executive branch because that is where Feinberg, 0bama's Pay Czar, works.

Besides, Congress has no authority to set aside or modify lawful contracts. To do so would require a constitutional amendment, a fact that I have already explained to you.

You lost a debate and are now attempting to disown your own written words. Your were too eager to support what you believed were the Obama regime's actions. In short, you walked into a trap and got yourself snared. There is no need to gnaw your foot off to escape the trap. Just call it a day and limp on home. :biggrin:

Hoot, you can twist my words either which way you want to. But anyone can read it, i never said obama can do whatever he likes, I said

So Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.

So maybe you might want to reread the thread yourself.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, you can twist my words either which way you want to. But anyone can read it, i never said obama can do whatever he likes, I said

So Yes i believe the government should be able to alter there pay after having a financial role in the company.

So maybe you might want to reread the thread yourself.

I have already read it and I understood what you said when you said it. You are wrong either way, whether you want to stick to your original posts or abandon them in favor of your last couple of posts. The federal government has no authority to set aside or modify a valid, lawful contract. The Dimocrats who control Congress could pass a law and the Community Organizer in Chief could sign it, but the law would be unconstitutional, challenged, and then struck down.

Our entire economic and legal systems are based upon the ability of people to enter into binding written agreements between and among themselves. Once the federal government stops respecting the validity of legal written contracts, this nation is doomed. Even a bad constitutional lawyer like 0bama understands that fact.

[Wildcatk23]

I have already read it and I understood what you said when you said it. You are wrong either way, whether you want to stick to your original posts or abandon them in favor of your last couple of posts. The federal government has no authority to set aside or modify a valid, lawful contract. The Dimocrats who control Congress could pass a law and the Community Organizer in Chief could sign it, but the law would be unconstitutional, challenged, and then struck down.

Our entire economic and legal systems are based upon the ability of people to enter into binding written agreements between and among themselves. Once the federal government stops respecting the validity of legal written contracts, this nation is doomed. Even a bad constitutional lawyer like 0bama understands that fact.

Where is my original post hoot? Pls Let me see it? I said the Government in ever post. Come on man your not that naive are you?

Also, I said the government should be able to set these executives salary, SINCE THEY BAILED OUT THESE COMPANIES. If a company buys out another company i'm sure peoples pay is going to change. And the way the government is ran, Its just one big monster money hungry company? Would you agree?

Like my new boss decided we don't get paid vacations this year .